GAY adopter kills child within weeks.

[mistermack]

what are these extra skills, capacities and motives that women possess and men don't?

Just in case you get tempted to ask that silly question yet again, (I think the answer is so obvious I don't know why you even ask it), just imagine what this gay couple went through before adoption.
Their skills, capacities and motives were examined in detail by the "experts" of the social agencies. And passed as not just fit, but the very best of all the couples who were available to them, to choose as adoptive parents.
And there would have been a long, long queue to choose from.

So it should be bleedin obvious, even to you, that the important thing was not the quantifiable skills and visible attributes that were lacking. He wasn't suited to full time child care emotionally. And a big part of that was because he's a man. He would have struggled to get a job as a nanny, or a babysitter, or a carer in a nursery school. But they had no problems giving him a baby girl, to look after 24/7. Because of equality. Assholes.

[cronus]

Humans are all potentially lethal to one another. It's the conditions that are important. Making sure a gay couple has a well provisioned social network who can take up stresses and support, rather than living within a insular only gays in the village context....etc...where is the bad?

[Brian Peacock]

TL;DR?

• mistermack,
  
  With regards to successfully undertaking the role of the primary career of children: If women are naturally or inherently better parents than men then what skills, capacities and motives do women naturally possess and men lack?

=========================================

The level of debate on this subject is pathetic.

I'd tend to agree. Asking questions about another's point of view isn't a debate unless others are prepared to answer them. Ploughing on regardless while ignoring questions about one's own position isn't a debate either, it's a speech. For example...

Men have a lot more testosterone, and women have more oestrogen.

How do the relative levels of these hormones, which both men and women have in different amounts, impact on the skills, capacities and motives of parents to make women naturally better parents than men when it comes to performing the role of the primary career for their children? What's the impact on women's parenting when they have a relatively low level of oestrogen or a relatively high level of testosterone, and what is the impact on men's parenting when the reverse is true? The levels of both these hormones decline with age in men and women, so what impact does that have on the parenting abilities of older parents compared to the abilities of younger parents?

... still awaits your attention.

Your statement that male and female sex hormones have a direct impact on the skills, capacities and motives for successful parenting still have to be qualified and rationally supported.

* * *

The question is factual, but the posts are emotional.

I agree entirely. For example, see above.

You bleeding hearts FEEL that because gays have been discriminated against in the past, it should stop now. And the welfare of tiny defenceless babies isn't going to get in your way.

I feel that this is not an honest characterisation of the views of the people who have taken issue with your point of view. It certainly isn't my point of view at least.

It's really pretty disgusting, but luckily, on here the question is just academic.

The sad thing is that the same stupid emotional response to the question by people who DO have some power has lead to the death of this baby.

If one assumes adoption services are acting, or have acted, emotionally here, rather than rationally, then there must be a rational argument as to why gay parents are bad parents, or at least worse at parenting than straight parents? That's the argument you've got to make.

You've clearly stated what your opinion is, so now its time to explain the rationale and rationality of your point of view. If you cannot provide a rational argument then others are going to dismiss your ideas as being, basically, emotionally driven responses - opinions, held without reason, out of habit or tradition or prejudice or whatever.

Many heterosexual couples would have been glad to adopt her, but the social services, against the better judgement of probably most of the nation, gave her to a gay couple because of "equality".

So your premise here is that adoption services have preferenced what turned out to be an unsuitable gay couple over an undisclosed but greater number of assumingly more deserving straight couples. What evidence do you have for this? What evidence do you have that the gay couple were not just the next couple to come to the top of the list?

If your point is that straight couples should always be ahead of gay couples on the potential adoptive parents list, then I'd like to know on what basis are you able to downgrade the parenting skills and rights of all gay couples?

Already in this thread you have said that women naturally make better parents than men, so if this your response to the above question then what I'd like to know is what I've been asking you in a number of posts now - on what basis are you able to categorically state that men naturally or inherently lack the requisite skills, capacities and motives needed for successful, practical, nuts-and-bolts parenting?

I've spoken to people trying to adopt, and the reasons for rejection can be stunning, like not enough church-going, etc. etc. (in the past, that I hope might have gone now). The tiniest thing will turn them off you.
But apparently, having a cock and balls isn't clue enough that you're not a real woman.

OK, here we are again. Bluntly, why does being a man make you a bad parent, or at least a worse parent than a women, particular with regards to the primary parenting role traditionally undertaken by women? Already you've said that women are better at parenting because they're women, and men are worse at parenting because they're not women, so agian, on what factual basis are you able to make such a confident declaration?

I'm pro the right to marry, it doesn't affect me, and I don't give a fuck if some wankers are offended on religious grounds.
But being married to a man doesn't make you a woman. And just because some men CAN perform the task of motherhood, it doesn't mean that all must be trusted equally to women. That is bollocks, but it's what people on here seem to be pushing.

What skills, capacities and motives do women have, and which men lack, which make them naturally or inherently better suited for the primary patenting role?

Just because one schizophrenic qualifies as a brain surgeon and does ok, it doesn't mean that we must trust EVERY schizophrenic equally, to operate on your tumour. Especially if another one slices a brain to bits within weeks of starting work. It would give most people cause for reflection.
Fuck their rights. I would want a normal one for my brain operation.

Now you're just saying that being gay is abnormal and that gay parents are inherently dangerous to the children in their care. The more you continue to further you point in this manner, in the absence of any rational justification, the more it looks like you're simply appealing to your own opinions and prejudices. Making an appeal to common sense would 'seal the deal' in this respect I think.

But it wasn't your baby girl. Imagine if it was your child. Taken from it's mother to "protect" it, and given to this so called "family".
But you lot don't give a fuck, because she was someone else's.

I'd like to remind you of something you said earlier:

The question is factual, but the posts are emotional.

Criticising other for not being hard-headed and rational, for being overly emotional, and then making an emotional appeal that invites an emotional response not only highlight the fallacious nature of your assumptions but also represents an intellectually dishonest approach to discussing these important issues.

If the question is factual, which I think it is, then surely you can provide a rational, evidenced, factual justification for your point of view?

If, on the other hand, your response to the incident, to gay individuals, to gay parents, and/or to those who disagree with you is an emotional one then a) you discount your own point of view on the same basis you have attempted to discount the views of others, and b) you are no more entitled to elevate your point of view to the status of factual truth than anybody else with a random opinion rooted in reflex responses and unconsidered assumptions.

[Brian Peacock]

Humans are all potentially lethal to one another. It's the conditions that are important. Making sure a gay couple has a well provisioned social network who can take up stresses and support, rather than living within a insular only gays in the village context....etc...where is the bad?

Given that 'humans are all potentially lethal to one another' why single gay parents out for this special treatment?

[Brian Peacock]

what are these extra skills, capacities and motives that women possess and men don't?

Just in case you get tempted to ask that silly question yet again, (I think the answer is so obvious I don't know why you even ask it), just imagine what this gay couple went through before adoption.
Their skills, capacities and motives were examined in detail by the "experts" of the social agencies. And passed as not just fit, but the very best of all the couples who were available to them, to choose as adoptive parents.
And there would have been a long, long queue to choose from.

So it should be bleedin obvious, even to you, that the important thing was not the quantifiable skills and visible attributes that were lacking. He wasn't suited to full time child care emotionally. And a big part of that was because he's a man. He would have struggled to get a job as a nanny, or a babysitter, or a carer in a nursery school. But they had no problems giving him a baby girl, to look after 24/7. Because of equality. Assholes.

What's important to me is whether or not you're ready, willing, or able to support your point of view. You said women are naturally better parents than men - or at least that's what you implied when you said that men are worse parents than women because they don't have breasts or the right levels of certain sex hormones. I'm asking you to quantify what constitutes those parenting skills, the difference between good and bad parenting, and to justify your point of view rationally because, as you say, "this is a factual question not an emotional one". I'm trying to address your contention that men, but particularly gay men, are worse at parenting than women, or at least are more likely to be worse parents than women. I await your response.

[Forty Two]

I think the key point that is left unsubstantiated is that homosexuals are more violent towards children and babies. There has been nothing presented to suggest that to be the case.

[pErvinalia]

Humans are all potentially lethal to one another. It's the conditions that are important. Making sure a gay couple has a well provisioned social network who can take up stresses and support, rather than living within a insular only gays in the village context....etc...where is the bad?

Given that 'humans are all potentially lethal to one another' why single gay parents out for this special treatment?

Why single out any one of Crumple's meaningless posts as being intellectually worth engaging with? To reply to him with logic like that implies that he's logical enough himself to understand it and that he isn't just trolling for the shits and giggles.

[pErvinalia]

I think the key point that is left unsubstantiated is that homosexuals are more violent towards children and babies. There has been nothing presented to suggest that to be the case.

There is no evidence to support it. Like with his views on climate science, evidence doesn't come into it. It's feelings and fear that drive his responses to things he doesn't understand.

[cronus]

I think the key point that is left unsubstantiated is that homosexuals are more violent towards children and babies. There has been nothing presented to suggest that to be the case.

There is no evidence to support it. Like with his views on climate science, evidence doesn't come into it. It's feelings and fear that drive his responses to things he doesn't understand.

There's no evidence allowing lions to roam shopping malls will involve many human fatalities. I'm not saying lions are the same as gays. It's the sort of evidence you don't find, but can imagine based on what is known using straightforward deductive logic. There is more violence in gay relationships. A risk factor which should be taken into account with adoption procedures.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29994648

[Sean Hayden]

In other words you're making a judgement call. That's fine, I wish more people could do that about all kinds of stuff instead of pretending to need evidence which may never be found --cough Trump cough.

The problem here though is that your judgement seeks to establish a reason for discriminating against a group of people. So my better judgement --ain't it always-- is that this is a situation where evidence should be required else we'd all be at the mercy of the prejudice of the month. You can have your prejudice, we just can't make it law, understand?

[pErvinalia]

I think the key point that is left unsubstantiated is that homosexuals are more violent towards children and babies. There has been nothing presented to suggest that to be the case.

There is no evidence to support it. Like with his views on climate science, evidence doesn't come into it. It's feelings and fear that drive his responses to things he doesn't understand.

There's no evidence allowing lions to roam shopping malls will involve many human fatalities. I'm not saying lions are the same as gays.

Actually you are (in the sense that they are a danger to "us").

It's the sort of evidence you don't find, but can imagine based on what is known using straightforward deductive logic.

I think 'imagine' is the critical word here...

[Forty Two]

I think there is evidence that lions in shopping malls roaming free would result in a lot of people being attacked by lions. You don't need to test in a shopping mall for that. You can see lion behavior in other contexts. And, we don't have that kind of evidence about gay people. They aren't the lions of the human species.

That being said, it would seem the answer would be reasonable vetting of potential parents, and mandatory parental training.

It seems to me that we get people who are not prepared for the crying baby that won't be consoled for a long period of time, or not prepared for the emotional outbursts of a baby who was deprived of parental love in the early days and months. With my own, I can tell you, it can be tough being up at 1am, and then 3am on a work night, pacing the floor trying to console the baby. Younger folks or folks unprepared for that may get really frustrated and lash out. I don't think, in all honesty, it's a function of sexual preference, but rather a function of maturity and personality, expectations and ability to focus and tolerate difficult situations.

[cronus]

I'm not saying there should be any discrimination, this sin't ethnic profiling rather context profiling. If the context is already potentially violent according to the minority-stress model of relationships...factor it in with regards adoption, not as a decisive issue but as a relevant and important one.

[pErvinalia]

Homosexual relationships aren't more violent. You can't even get the premises of your "argument" right. Statistical errors of margin isn't anything to build an argument upon.

[mistermack]

The statistics for killings of adopted babies must be off the scale now, with this one case of murder.

How many babies get given to homosexual male couples in the UK in a year? It's going to be absolutely miniscule, compared to normal heterosexual adoptions. As it bloody well ought to be.

How many straight adoptive parents killed the baby they adopted in the UK last year? The number is probably zero. I'm pretty sure it would have been reported.
I've googled for adoptive parents killing a baby, and this is the only one that comes up anywhere.
The case of an older girl being killed by religious nuts comes up, but that's in the US.

So, in the last five years, there apparently have been about 25,000 adoptions without a murder in the UK.
Probably virtually all hetero. And I'm betting no more than five (if that) babies adopted by gay male couples.
The statistics for gay adoption are going to be horrendous for at least the next ten years, just with this one death. Maybe for the next 20 years. What agency is going to risk it again, any time soon?